Vol. 369 No. 1
asked the Taoiseach if he considers that the guidelines issued to Ministers and Ministers of State on taking office, regarding involvement in firms in which they or their families have a financial involvement are adequate; and if he will make the guidelines available to Deputies by lodging them in the Dáil Library.
2.
asked the Taoiseach if the Government will introduce legislation requiring full disclosure of all business and commercial interests by all Members of the Oireachtas.
I propose, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together. In relation to business interests of members of the Government and Ministers of State the following code has been applied by many administrations over a long number of years:—
—No Minister or Minister of State should engage in any activities that could reasonably be regarded as interfering, or being incompatible, with the full and proper discharge of the duties of office,
—Ministers or Ministers of State should not hold company directorships carrying remuneration; even if remuneration is not paid, it would be regarded as undesirable that a Minister or Minister of State should hold a directorship; a resigning director can, however, enter into an agreement with a company under which the company would agree to reappointment as director on the termination of public office,
—Ministers or Ministers of State should not carry on a professional practice while holding office but there would be no objection to making arrangements for the maintenance of a practice while holding public office and for return to the practice on ceasing to hold office.
In case of doubt the Taoiseach should be consulted. All Ministers and Ministers of State are made aware of these principles on appointment, which I regard as adequate.
In relation to Members of the Oireachtas who are not office holders, I am arranging to have the question of whether any additional procedures in this regard are desirable raised with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The Taoiseach indicates in his reply that he considers the guidelines to be adequate. Can he tell the House whether he considers that if these guidelines are breached that is a matter for dismissal of such a Minister or office holder? Could he indicate also, as I requested, if there is any reason these guidelines could not be made available to the public by way of placing them either in the Library or the Government Publications Sale Office?
They are available to the public and on the record now. The reply to this question will be in the Library. With regard to the other point, the question of what action a Taoiseach would consider appropriate in respect of any breach of the guidelines, that would be a matter for the Taoiseach of the day.
Does the Taoiseach consider that all of his own Ministers and Ministers of State have abided by the guidelines in both the spirit and the letter?
The answer is "yes". If the answer were otherwise, naturally I would take appropriate action.
In relation to Question No. 2, while referring it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, does the Taoiseach consider it would be appropriate for Members of the House to divulge the information I referred to in the question? Will he indicate his own views on the divulging of business interests by all Members of the Oireachtas?
I am not sure that is appropriate. I have reflected on it. I have mixed views about it and I do not know whether telling the House what they are would add greatly to the enlightenment of anybody.
Could the Taoiseach indicate whether or not the operation of these guidelines has, during the past 12 months, caused him to mislead the House?
Deputy Haughey is not allowed to raise that.
What is the point——
In the opinion of the Chair, Deputy Haughey is introducing a question the Chair has ruled out of order, and presumably Deputy Haughey will be mentioning that later on.
This is Question Time.
I am ruling that question out of order because it is really the same as the question which has been ruled out of order.
It is a disgrace.
The Ceann Comhairle must accept responsibility for leaving the matter hanging. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to make a personal statement to the House today on anything associated with the matters dealt with in Question No. 1?
I asked the Ceann Comhairle for permission to make a personal statement in relation to my reply to the question on 11 February and the Ceann Comhairle replied and told me it would be out of order for me to do so as the matter concerned is sub judice.
Would that personal statement which the Taoiseach has been prevented from making have anything to do with his making an apology to the House for misleading the House?
I am afraid I am in a difficulty, a Cheann Comhairle——
You can say that again.
I wished to make a statement. I have sought to do so and I have been frustrated in that by the view of the Ceann Comhairle which I have to respect in the matter. I cannot take the matter any further in the circumstances and I very much regret that.
I ask the Deputies to fall in line with the spirit of my ruling and I will not have any objection to the matter being raised——
I just want to ask something arising out of an answer given by the Taoiseach. Did I hear him correctly and interpret him correctly when he said in reply to a question by Deputy De Rossa that no member of the present Government or Minister of State has, during the course of this Government, transgressed the guidelines laid down in his reply to Question No. 1? Did I understand him correctly to say that and, if so, how can he reconcil that with the fact that a Minister of State was removed from office quite recently?
The question I was asked and answered related to the members of the Government and I answered accordingly.
I merely asked if the Taoiseach would, as a matter of courtesy, indicate to me if I heard him correctly when he said in reply to Deputy De Rossa that no Minister or Minister of State under this Government has transgressed the guidelines laid down by him in answer to Question No. 1. Did he or did he not say that?
Yes, I did say that in relation to this Government.
Is the Taoiseach quibbling about Ministers of Government as distinct from Ministers of State?
No, I am not. I am endeavouring to answer the question within the limits of the Ceann Comhairle's decision which prevents me from making a personal statement as I would have wished to have done.
The Taoiseach, as I understand it, has assured the House——
Deputy Haughey is asking a question. Order, please.
I am prepared to give way. I acknowledge the Deputy's right because it is his question. May I ask the Taoiseach——
You are the ones whose seats are in danger, by the way. Do not forget that.
Has the Taoiseach indicated to the House that no member of this Government or Minister of State has transgressed the guidelines which he has outlined to the House? If that is so, how can he reconcile that with the fact that a Minister of State of this Government was removed from office by the Government?
I ask respect for the Chair. We are obviously now about to discuss, in one way or another, something that is the subject matter of a court action. I have a short statement to make on that later on and I ask the Deputies to leave it until then. I have ruled these questions out of order.
I do not wish to go into the area on which you intend to make a statement later on, presumably on the Order of Business. But the point which Deputy Haughey has raised is important in relation to the answer given by the Taoiseach. I clearly understood him to say that no member of his Government — which I understood to mean Ministers of State also — was in breach of these guidelines. It would appear that the Taoiseach is not saying that. I ask him again: does he consider that any Minister or Minister of State has been in breach of the guidelines which he read out today?
I would prefer if that question was not answered.
I am sure you would.
No matter what way it is answered——
No matter what way it is answered it can affect something that is before the courts.
On a point of order, I want to make this point. Can you, Sir — and you are an experienced parliamentarian and have visited many parliaments in your capacity as our distinguished Ceann Comhairle — visualise any democratic Parliament in the world in which a Minister would be removed from office and that Parliament prevents itself from discussing the matter? That is a straighforward question.
I have had the great honour of representing this Parliament at a number of Parliaments throughout the world on a number of Continents, and I can honestly and truthfully say that the one message which was brought home to me is the lack of respect shown to this Chair compared with all the other Parliaments that I have visited. That is the one thing that struck me. I may go further now that it has been introduced. I have noticed that visiting parliamentarians from abroad who have the privilege of sitting in that Gallery are surprised at the bashing this Chair gets. It is a case of "us and him". It should not be that.
That is true.
The question I asked in relation to the breach of these guidelines has not been ruled out of order.
It is against the spirit of my ruling.
I cannot accept that. I have acted here today within the spirit of your ruling——
I do not think so, Deputy.
——and in pursuing the question you have ruled out of order I am asking now for information from the Taoiseach, from the Leader of this Government, to indicate that no member of his Government, Minister or Minister of State, has been in breach of the guidelines laid out here today as governing their activities. It is a simple straightforward question which requires a yes or a no.
Deputy De Rossa, in view of what is known throughout this country, no matter how that question is answered it is bound to affect one or the other party to an action pending in the High Court.
Your ruling is based on the assumption that there is a court action either in progress or pending and I do not know where you got that information from, whether it has come from the newspapers or from the solicitors of either of the parties involved. I do not know in what way you have come by this information. But my information is that no statement of claim has been issued in relation to the writs which were due to have been made by last Friday. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is no court case in progress or likely to take place.
It is obvious that it would be better to deal with the substantive question now on these two questions and get it out of the way. I understand Deputy Haughey may want to make a submission about the disallowance of his question. If he does, I will hear it now and I will give my reason.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, I shall be very brief. Neither I nor any of my colleagues has any wish to engage in any sort of personal witch-hunt in this matter. We have already demonstrated that clearly. I merely submitted a question in the interest of clarification. As you know, Sir, my question was to ask the Taoiseach to make a statement on all the circumstances surrounding the removal of Deputy E. Collins from his post as a Minister of State. My question asked no more than that. It left it entirely up to the Taoiseach as to how much he would wish to say or how far he would wish to go. I submit, Sir, that that was a perfectly reasonable, legitimate parliamentary device, not involving any transgression of the sub judice rule or anything else. I want to add to that my suggestion that it is really reducing this Parliament to total incompetence if — for whatever reason a Minister of State is removed from office — Members of this House, cannot question the Taoiseach of the day about such removal. I do not think there is any other democratic parliament anywhere in the world which would place such an inhibition and prohibition on itself.
Hear, hear.
I suggest it is reducing our affairs here and our status as a Parliament to an unbelievably negative role if we are to accept that position. I believe that the matter now transcends any behaviour of Deputy E. Collins — and I am not for one moment making any accusation whatever in regard to any possible breach of these guidelines by Deputy E. Collins, because I do not know. I believe the matter now transcends that aspect. It concerns the Taoiseach: it concerns the Taoiseach's statement in this House as to whether that statement misled the House deliberately or inadvertently. It also concerns whether or not the Taoiseach neglected his duties, as head of Government, by being inactive in this matter over a long period. Thank you, Sir.
A Cheann Comhairle, may I make a——
No, I propose to deal with this matter in this way.
May I have the same right as the Leader of the Opposition to make a submission to you, Sir?
I will hear Deputy De Rossa. He has a question down now and I will come to that in a minute. Does Deputy De Rossa wish to make a submission?
As you know, Sir, from the seven questions which have been ruled out of order my concern in this matter relates exclusively to the manner in which the Taoiseach dealt with the question I raised here in February of this year, whether the replies given at that time were accurate and what investigation the Taoiseach pursued in order to provide the information requested by me for the House. It seems to me that the interpretation being placed on the sub judice rule is extremely wide.
I cannot allow arguments on the merits of the thing.
I am talking about whether the questions I raised can be considered to come within the sub judice rule. The questions did not seek to deal with any matters outside this House.
That is dealing with my ruling. It is arguing the merits of my ruling.
I am arguing that the questions were ruled out of order on the basis of a rule for which I have found no precedent whatsoever.
I am sorry, Deputy. If I were to allow every decision that I made here to be questioned and argued on the floor there would never be an end to anything. I cannot allow that. There are ways of doing that. As a matter of fact I should say that the Chair deprecates — in the interests of the Chair — the dragging of the Chair into public controversy through the media.
I am in the position that it would seem the only way these questions can be raised is through the media because we seem to be blocked in having them raised here in the House.
I will explain to the Deputy how they can be dealt with.
That is the nub of the problem. It would seem that any person — and I am not referring to any particular Deputy in the House — who chooses to avoid having matters raised in this House simply has to issue a writ against somebody or other and leave it there. Therefore, this House cannot discuss matters which are of relevance to this House, not of relevance outside it.
I cannot allow the Deputy to continue on those lines. I would have preferred that these complaints, if I might call them such, which have been raised against the Chair's disallowance of the questions were left with me and the Deputies who put down the questions. Otherwise we will get into a debate on this which would not be desirable.
I would not wish in any way to be disrespectful to the Chair. I fully accept the Chair's rulings but I should like to say that when I received the ruling with regard to the questions I found myself in a very invidious position because I wished to clarify a statement I made in this House on 11 February last. In the light of that I submitted to you, Sir, that I wished to make a personal statement. It was my intention that the statement — as far as I could judge — would avoid any breach of the sub judice rule and, indeed for that reason, it would have had to be somewhat limited. You ruled it out of order and I fully understand why you did so but I have to say that inevitably, from my point of view, it leaves me in a difficult and invidious position when I had wished to make a personal statement. I hope the House will appreciate the difficulty in which I have been placed. We all appreciate, Sir, the difficulty in which you are placed — I have the greatest respect for your judgment in the matter — but I felt that at least I ought to make that point at this stage.
I would ask the House to let me explain briefly. It is not usual for the Chair to explain his rulings but I feel that this is one occasion, having regard to the amount of publicity it has received, that I should explain. The purpose of the sub judice rule, which has operated in this House for over 60 years, is to protect litigants, plaintiffs and defendants, and ensure that actions coming before the courts are not prejudiced by being discussed in this House which enjoys absolute privilege. If the rule were to be ignored, the House used as a sort of a pre-trial forum or as an alternative for other court procedures — I have in mind interrogatories and discovery — in my opinion it would undermine our system of justice, bring about unfair judgments, and influence unfairly tribunals, judges and juries.
I have carefully considered the position of the questions regarding the removal of Deputy E. Collins from the position of Minister of State. A plenary summons for libel has been issued in the High Court. An appearance has been entered thereto. In the ordinary course the case would come on for hearing before a judge and jury. I am satisfied that the subject matter of each question which is allowed will figure in the hearing of the action.
Deputy De Rossa mentioned the statement of claim. It is not unusual — as a matter of fact it is quite usual — that the statement of claim does not arrive until some time after the plenary summons has been issued and served. I am therefore clearly of the opinion that, in accordance with long standing and well established practice, the rule applies to those questions and I would be guilty of a grave dereliction of my duty if I did not apply it. What I am going to say now, in my opinion, goes to the core of the matter, and it is very important because the impression seems to have been given that this House is being muzzled by some individual or by some outside influence. It is very important therefore that it should be noted that this House has complete control over its own procedures. It can abolish the application of the sub judice rule or it can modify it. If everybody feels like that, this can be done in a very short time. If the House did so, I would be only too glad to operate the new procedure, but it is less than fair to the Chair, and it is not reasonable to hand the Chair a group of Standing Orders and a well defined code of practice and then expect him to ignore them. I regret that I am not prepared to do that.
Finally, in accordance with the same authority and the same practice the Chair's ruling cannot be questioned except by way of a formal notice of motion. I seriously ask the House to accept that I am acting in good faith. I have not been approached by anybody nor have I approached anybody. As Deputy Haughey said, I have long experience in this House and I have even more experience as a reasonably busy practitioner in the law. I am acting in good faith and I believe that what I am doing is in the interest of the litigants in this case and, perhaps more important, in the interest of litigants who will come after.
I fully accept that you are acting in good faith and I hope nothing I have said would indicate otherwise. I realise you are wrestling with the very difficult matter — the need to enable our courts to operate properly — in fairness to all parties coming before them so that no litigant or defendant would be prejudiced in any way by anything that might happen here. I can see your problem in that regard.
The other difficulty that presents itself to us, and I am sure to yourself is, given the desirability of adhering to the sub judice precedent, how can the House, the Taoiseach, myself, or any Deputy, discuss this very important matter? I accept that you are presented with a very real difficulty and that you would wish the House to be able to explore this matter, as all Deputies and the public would want it to be explored, but I want to make two points in regard to the dilemma facing you.
First, we are dealing here with the removal of a Minister of State from office. The fact that this has happened removes this matter way outside the normal legal parameters and makes it very much a political matter which should and must be dealt with in this House. Secondly, so far as I am concerned, I am not anxious to discuss the behaviour of Deputy Eddie Collins as a Minister of State. I do not like this House to be forced into that sort of situation because I have had enough bruising experiences of that myself from time to time. I do not like it when this House sits in judgment on Members of the House.
My question would have nothing to do with that aspect but would concentrate exclusively on the jurisdiction of the Taoiseach and the manner in which he discharged his responsibilities as Head of the Government. I suggest, Sir, that if you let my question go, or if you let me raise it in some way tomorrow, I will confine my remarks entirely to aspects of the matter which would not in any way prejudice any legal action which might take place. I am concerned that the Taoiseach may have misled the House, advertently or inadvertently, and I am concerned that the Taoiseach was inactive in his duties as Head of the Government over a long period. They are the aspects I would have wished to raise and I think I could have done so under your guidance without in any way infringing a sub judice rule.
I understand Deputy Haughey's difficulties. Any political difficulties that exist in this House can be resolved by the House within the machinery available. If I were to breach the sub judice rule as I understand it, I might be doing damage to people outside over whom I have no control by allowing this matter to be discussed in this House which has absolute privilege. That is my difficulty. I repeat that this House can remove any barriers and that there is nobody muzzling the House but the House itself.
Tomás Mac Giolla rose.
I am not allowing a general debate on this subject. I allowed Deputy De Rossa——
May I make a request?
Yes.
When I received your ruling I considered the position and thought it would be possible to make a personal statement that would clarify some matters to the House and would not breach the sub judice rule. I appreciate that you could reasonably feel that anything I said would do so but would you feel it appropriate if I submitted to you my proposed personal statement and you could then make your ruling?
That would be very undesirable.
That would be placing on me the onus of a judge and jury. I should have said when dealing with Deputy Haughey's remarks that I do not believe that in this assembly it is possible to divorce one aspect of this matter from the other, and I came to that conclusion when I was considering it. However, I must say that whatever doubt I had about that was removed by the preliminary skirmish we had on Questions Nos. 1 and 2.
I believe my statement would not offend against the sub judice rule and I wish to establish that with you. The Opposition seem to feel this would be inappropriate, and I do not want to get into any controversial positions, but I am in a difficulty because I am not allowed to make a personal statement which I believe would not offend against the rule. This statement has been carefully drawn in a very limited way as a result and you are not in a position to judge whether it would offend against the rule——
The position is that if the Taoiseach makes one personal statement and arising out of that another person wants to make another personal statement——
I do not think that the Taoiseach of the day has to submit anything he says in this House to the Ceann Comhairle.
I wish to state quite clearly that at no time have I imputed bad faith to you on this or any other issue on which you have decided. My point in relation to the gagging of the Dáil is the effect of the decision. You have always made your decisions on the basis of fairness and no other consideration was involved. However, unlike Deputy Haughey, I consider that the underlying issues in the questions I raised and the manner in which the Taoiseach has dealt with them concerns other Ministers. The public, whom we serve in this House, have a right to know the limitations on the activities of Ministers and how they are operated by the Taoiseach. I am anxious to clarify these questions and I hope the House will have an opportunity of doing so very soon. I am pressing this matter because I do not have the right to sit on the Committee of Procedure and Privileges——
I will not allow a general debate on this matter.
I have raised matters with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on a number of occasions and did not even receive the courtesy of a reply. I tabled motions which were never debated because I do not have that right and that is why I am pressing this matter now.
The Chair does not appoint Members to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Could the Ceann Comhairle please read the rule in regard to sub judice?
If Deputy Mac Giolla honours me by calling to my office, I will give him a lecture on it.
I am just asking you to read the rule.
Come to my office and we will sort it all out.
